I'm headed up to Takoma Park for Ka Shin Zendo, in the morning. They have the same meeting days as the days I have off. Plus they have people who know people who know people i know. Perhaps things dont always happen randomly; maybe they do, but fortuitious circumstances are always welcomed

I'm headed up to Takoma Park for Ka Shin Zendo, in the morning. They have the same meeting days as the days I have off. Plus they have people who know people who know people i know. Perhaps things dont always happen randomly; maybe they do, but fortuitious circumstances are always welcomed

it was nice. there were even other old people there. Tacoma Park is like Paradise compared to West Alexandria!

I'm headed up to Takoma Park for Ka Shin Zendo, in the morning. They have the same meeting days as the days I have off. Plus they have people who know people who know people i know. Perhaps things dont always happen randomly; maybe they do, but fortuitious circumstances are always welcomed

it was nice. there were even other old people there. Tacoma Park is like Paradise compared to West Alexandria!

I live in West Alexandria (Wakefield-Tarleton), and I agree with you that Takoma Park is comparatively swank.

I'm glad you had a good experience with that group. I wish you all the best in your practice of Dharma.

I'm headed up to Takoma Park for Ka Shin Zendo, in the morning. They have the same meeting days as the days I have off. Plus they have people who know people who know people i know. Perhaps things dont always happen randomly; maybe they do, but fortuitious circumstances are always welcomed

it was nice. there were even other old people there. Tacoma Park is like Paradise compared to West Alexandria!

I live in West Alexandria (Wakefield-Tarleton), and I agree with you that Takoma Park is comparatively swank.

I'm glad you had a good experience with that group. I wish you all the best in your practice of Dharma.

I'm in West End Alex too we should go to Pantera Bread for coffee etc.

personally i think its weird for lay praticioners to wear robes. But thats just me. Even if i were a monk, i'd figure out a way to avoid that

I completely agree, and I have practiced with Kwan Um for many years. It's a minor annoyance, though. Babies and bathwater...

I sometimes get funny looks because I usually wear "heavy metal" shirts, which can be anything from a skull, demon or whatever so called "dark"
But once ppl talk to me their IDEA of me changes

I explained to an 8 year old child that "scary" things are actually "protectors" if you don't fear them, so not only does she like my shirts her nightmares have vanished too. Nothing is the way we think it is anyway.

personally i think its weird for lay praticioners to wear robes. But thats just me. Even if i were a monk, i'd figure out a way to avoid that

I completely agree, and I have practiced with Kwan Um for many years. It's a minor annoyance, though. Babies and bathwater...

I sometimes get funny looks because I usually wear "heavy metal" shirts, which can be anything from a skull, demon or whatever so called "dark"
But once ppl talk to me their IDEA of me changes

I explained to an 8 year old child that "scary" things are actually "protectors" if you don't fear them, so not only does she like my shirts her nightmares have vanished too. Nothing is the way we think it is anyway.

That's actually one of the positives I see about the robes. We have guest robes, for people who don't have their own. They are just lightweight, short bowing robes. They cover up whatever distracting stuff people might have going on with their shirts. Ads, pictures, whatever. It supports the practice, in that way. I do get why people might have an aversion to them, though. It looks a little cult-ish, from the outside.

Keith wrote:
That's actually one of the positives I see about the robes. We have guest robes, for people who don't have their own. They are just lightweight, short bowing robes. They cover up whatever distracting stuff people might have going on with their shirts. Ads, pictures, whatever. It supports the practice, in that way. I do get why people might have an aversion to them, though. It looks a little cult-ish, from the outside.

Thanks Keith, when I do volunteer work with the elder ppl in my local community I always look representitive especially since ppl have dementia. I'll keep your words im mind I never considered clothing to be a distraction but it could happen.

Keith wrote:
That's actually one of the positives I see about the robes. We have guest robes, for people who don't have their own. They are just lightweight, short bowing robes. They cover up whatever distracting stuff people might have going on with their shirts. Ads, pictures, whatever. It supports the practice, in that way. I do get why people might have an aversion to them, though. It looks a little cult-ish, from the outside.

Thanks Keith, when I do volunteer work with the elder ppl in my local community I always look representitive especially since ppl have dementia. I'll keep your words im mind I never considered clothing to be a distraction but it could happen.

I appreciate that you received what I wrote in the spirit in which i wrote it, Marcin. But, that's not a surprise, given how long we have "known" each other. I love that you care enough about elderly folks not to scare the hell out of them with your shirts!

It's interesting see the different reactions when people run into the various rules of the Dharma room. Some take the rules to be a form of subjugation or worse. In certain situations, that could be the case.

But in a healthy environment, the rules are actually freeing. They allow us to get on with practice, without distractions. So, for us, robes are part of the discipline. I know for some folks that robes are a deal - breaker. They simply won't practice at a place that wears them.

Always in that spirit Brother (otherwise it's my error)
I understand, it helps to be reminded though and I appreciate your experience in this matter, which is much more then mine, so it's helpful to get your angle on it.

That's actually one of the positives I see about the robes. We have guest robes, for people who don't have their own. They are just lightweight, short bowing robes. They cover up whatever distracting stuff people might have going on with their shirts. Ads, pictures, whatever. It supports the practice, in that way. I do get why people might have an aversion to them, though. It looks a little cult-ish, from the outside.

Well, dang, that just took all the wind out of my anti-robe rant. Can i shift to rants against "lineage" or "transmission" then? LOL! Or will i still be hounded down?

That's actually one of the positives I see about the robes. We have guest robes, for people who don't have their own. They are just lightweight, short bowing robes. They cover up whatever distracting stuff people might have going on with their shirts. Ads, pictures, whatever. It supports the practice, in that way. I do get why people might have an aversion to them, though. It looks a little cult-ish, from the outside.

Well, dang, that just took all the wind out of my anti-robe rant. Can i shift to rants against "lineage" or "transmission" then? LOL! Or will i still be hounded down?

haha! Well, we will always look for something to be critical about. Until we stop looking for things to be critical about.

The plum tree, dwindling, contains less of the spring;
But the garden is wider, and holds more of the moon.

Mixed forums can be interesting, but it's also a potential double-edged sword when sectarianism raises it's ugly head. You don't have to click too far to find it here, or any other mixed tradition forum. Human beings being human beings. ZFI was a product of that sectarianism, but in the end, I like the vibe of rubbing shoulders with other Dharma brothers and sisters.

I respectfully disagree with one part of your post.

I was a moderator at e-sangha at the time of the ZFI split, and I was among those responsible for moderating the East Asian Buddhism forums. ZFI was created by persons (or rather, two of the persons who were involved with ZFI from the start) who were banned from e-sangha for various reasons that were not to do with sectarianism, but for other reasons that may not have been visible to users (we regularly removed posts from view that broke the rules of the board, for example). As it happened, ZFI went on to become a very useful resource for many people and e-sangha imploded not long after, so here we are.

I'd rather not go into specifics here but I am willing to discuss my perspective on it by PM if anyone cares to rehearse ancient history.

I just bring it up because from where I sat, "sectarianism" or anti-Zen sentiment wasn't really a factor, even though some parties shouted that narrative from the mountaintops of the interwebz.

Hi

I was part of e-sangha and also the inception of ZFI.

ZFI did start because of the hostility from e-sangha, including policing what N and others considered were "wrong practice" and Zen discussions (without understanding the nuances) were considered 'not Buddhist'.

Yes many of us were there too.

ZFI was started by a much larger group of people than the ones "banned from e-sangha" and let's face it, who wasn't getting banned at some point.

Yes, I agree. Although I was never on the E-Sangha staff, I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk", notions like post-mortem rebirth and permanent nirvana and the like.

Truth be told, there is a variety of views among modern Zen teachers and my attitude is that a Zen forum can be inclusive of those of traditional bend as well as those who are more on the revisionist side of things, as long as everyone behaves. There are issues at times when it comes to accusations of intellectual dishonesty or misrepresenting the sutras/teachings, but fundamentally Zen is about practice and disagreements regarding the dogma should not loom so large, in my view (as much as the dogma can inform practice as well).

Anyway, this is what we attempt to do at the new forum. Let me invite you to check it out sometime.

Yes, I agree. Although I was never on the E-Sangha staff, I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk", notions like post-mortem rebirth and permanent nirvana and the like.

Truth be told, there is a variety of views among modern Zen teachers and my attitude is that a Zen forum can be inclusive of those of traditional bend as well as those who are more on the revisionist side of things, as long as everyone behaves. There are issues at times when it comes to accusations of intellectual dishonesty or misrepresenting the sutras/teachings, but fundamentally Zen is about practice and disagreements regarding the dogma should not loom so large, in my view (as much as the dogma can inform practice as well).

Anyway, this is what we attempt to do at the new forum. Let me invite you to check it out sometime.

_/|\_
Dan

Yes I remember what happened well

Namdrol and co. were pretty unfair to us at that time imo, especially and including when he didn't understand why and how we related to each other.

Of course the flipside is that there is such a thing as misrepresenting the teachings/teaching degenerate Dharma - so it's always a question of balance and persona, imo. At the time, we did have many good authentic practitioners posting imho - and yet he/they still saw it as an issue because they didn't speak his/their language (words). Such dogmatism.

I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk",

You don't recall the context. So let me recall it for you. In a diverse forum with many different traditions, people were becoming quite confused as to what constituted a "monk." Many people were showing up on the forum claiming ordination and teacher appointments in this and that school and we felt an obligation to force them to verify their ordinations/lama/teacher status to prevent misrepresentation and fraud.

There was a great deal of public discussion of whether wine-drinking, non-celibate westerners who had received shukke tokudo were equivalent to bhikṣus or not. This naturally caused some wine-drinking, non-celibate Zen priests frequenting the forum to become upset. But these are the kind of issues that must be addressed. However, there was no "censure" of Zen monks, merely a very heated discussion of what "monk" ought to mean. Ultimately, of course, one disgruntled member threatened to sue us and put up a ridiculous anti-Esanga Website.

I still maintain that if one is a wine-drinking non-celibate, one ought not refer to oneself as a monk.

In other words, we had Huifeng, Khedrup, and Dhammanando on the one hand, all ordained as either śrāmaneras or bhikṣus/bhikkus who did not like the work monk being used for Soto priests, etc., and the other, we had Jundo, Nonin, and so on, noncelibates with day jobs who still wanted to be called "monks," as absurd as that sounds to me even now.

Someone at the SZBA must have been listening, since in this document they studiously avoid referring to people with shukke tokudo or shiho as monks, referring to them solely as priests.

You have no idea how difficult it is when you have a forum of 50k+ registered users. DW does not compare in either volume or complexity.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk",

You don't recall the context. So let me recall it for you. In a diverse forum with many different traditions, people were becoming quite confused as to what constituted a "monk." Many people were showing up on the forum claiming ordination and teacher appointments in this and that school and we felt an obligation to force them to verify their ordinations/lama/teacher status to prevent misrepresentation and fraud.

There was a great deal of public discussion of whether wine-drinking, non-celibate westerners who had received shukke tokudo were equivalent to bhikṣus or not. This naturally caused some wine-drinking, non-celibate Zen priests frequenting the forum to become upset. But these are the kind of issues that must be addressed. However, there was no "censure" of Zen monks, merely a very heated discussion of what "monk" ought to mean. Ultimately, of course, one disgruntled member threatened to sue us and put up a ridiculous anti-Esanga Website.

I still maintain that if one is a wine-drinking non-celibate, one ought not refer to oneself as a monk.

In other words, we had Huifeng, Khedrup, and Dhammanando on the one hand, all ordained as either śrāmaneras or bhikṣus/bhikkus who did not like the work monk being used for Soto priests, etc., and the other, we had Jundo, Nonin, and so on, noncelibates with day jobs who still wanted to be called "monks," as absurd as that sounds to me even now.

Someone at the SZBA must have been listening, since in this document they studiously avoid referring to people with shukke tokudo or shiho as monks, referring to them solely as priests.

You have no idea how difficult it is when you have a forum of 50k+ registered users. DW does not compare in either volume or complexity.

I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk",

You don't recall the context. So let me recall it for you. In a diverse forum with many different traditions, people were becoming quite confused as to what constituted a "monk." Many people were showing up on the forum claiming ordination and teacher appointments in this and that school and we felt an obligation to force them to verify their ordinations/lama/teacher status to prevent misrepresentation and fraud.

There was a great deal of public discussion of whether wine-drinking, non-celibate westerners who had received shukke tokudo were equivalent to bhikṣus or not. This naturally caused some wine-drinking, non-celibate Zen priests frequenting the forum to become upset. But these are the kind of issues that must be addressed. However, there was no "censure" of Zen monks, merely a very heated discussion of what "monk" ought to mean. Ultimately, of course, one disgruntled member threatened to sue us and put up a ridiculous anti-Esanga Website.

I still maintain that if one is a wine-drinking non-celibate, one ought not refer to oneself as a monk.

In other words, we had Huifeng, Khedrup, and Dhammanando on the one hand, all ordained as either śrāmaneras or bhikṣus/bhikkus who did not like the work monk being used for Soto priests, etc., and the other, we had Jundo, Nonin, and so on, noncelibates with day jobs who still wanted to be called "monks," as absurd as that sounds to me even now.

Someone at the SZBA must have been listening, since in this document they studiously avoid referring to people with shukke tokudo or shiho as monks, referring to them solely as priests.

You have no idea how difficult it is when you have a forum of 50k+ registered users. DW does not compare in either volume or complexity.

Malcolm, I don't hold any grudges and it is clear that people have different recollections of the events. At one stage a former ESangha admin shared with me his impression of how Zen folks were being mistreated, while another asserted that no such thing ever took place.